Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you use that to predict which atom decays next?
The decayed state exists, it's the second term sqrt(exp(-t/T))|0>
How do you predict which atom decays next from there?
Computation as a universal and fundamental concept
171–180 of 183 posts
Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
This stance is very tempting because it appears so straightforward and no-nonsense. But there are issues which undermine it in my mind. Because, at a closer inspection, it itself doesn't seem informative, in the end coming down to a question of semantics, i.e. how we define the word "reality". Which then determines whether it encompasses the realm of mathematics or not. I wonder what definition you favor, but the lan…
Let me try again. We use miles to measure distance. Hopefully you agree with me that, miles, being a system of measurement to express relationships of distance, have no ontological existence themselves. I would find it completely bizarre, for example, for someone to argue passionately that, "no miles are the real deal and something that exists in the universe and meters are a fabrication". Distance surely is a real p…
That's just it though.
Yes, separating symbols/descriptions from the physics is a common conflation, rightfully avoided and called out here, but I think you might be overcorrecting unconflating the concepts too much.
Quantum information is strange precisely because the theory treats information-like relationships as physically consequential.
Entanglement, path dependent stuff, cloning theorum, black hole information paradox... There are so many areas you run into where its information-centric descriptions appear to fit unreasonably well.
Again, I'm not saying the symbolic representation is "real" per se (not saying it's not either, I simply don't know what it is).
I agree bits are just nomenclature, but I don't agree that "bits" and "information" are the same thing. Like distance, "information" has a deeper and general architecture to it.
And it's also weirdly physical in places that I wouldn't expect it to be, for reasons I simply don't understand at the moment.
Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me try again. We use miles to measure distance. Hopefully you agree with me that, miles, being a system of measurement to express relationships of distance, have no ontological existence themselves. I would find it completely bizarre, for example, for someone to argue passionately that, "no miles are the real deal and something that exists in the universe and meters are a fabrication". Distance surely is a real p…
That's just it though. Yes, separating symbols/descriptions from the physics is a common conflation, rightfully avoided and called out here, but I think you might be overcorrecting unconflating the concepts too much. Quantum information is strange precisely because the theory treats information-like relationships as physically consequential. Entanglement, path dependent stuff, cloning theorum, black hole information…
I don't know enough about the quantum level to really understand whether or not that would change my view of things.
From Shannon's theory, it's abundantly clear that "information" is just a mathematical description of difference and expectation. I can frame anything as information. If I know who my parents are, a statement about who they are is not informative to me because it constitutes no difference. The entropy and expectation/surprise is low. If someone approaches me with a compelling argument that no, actually, my parents are not my parents I was adopted and my real parents are so and so, this is informative. The entropy is high.
Crucially, this all depends on me my personal history, and my status as an observer. It is in this sense that I find information to be a communications concept (which is how it started!) or semiotic concept more than a useful abstraction for organizing our knowledge about other parts of reality. Yes, the abstraction might still be useful if e.g. quanta end up behaving in some way according to shannon's laws, that is interesting, but to me uh at is not an argument that turns information into some kind of "universal substrate" of the real—it is just a surprising applicability of laws in one domain to another. Is it surprising that empirical data fit the model? Maybe. Idk, lots of empirical data can be made to fit all kinds of models (there are ways in which hI can reasonably take a Newtonian view of various aspects of my life and the data generally won't contravene the laws).
Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
This stance is very tempting because it appears so straightforward and no-nonsense. But there are issues which undermine it in my mind. Because, at a closer inspection, it itself doesn't seem informative, in the end coming down to a question of semantics, i.e. how we define the word "reality". Which then determines whether it encompasses the realm of mathematics or not. I wonder what definition you favor, but the lan…
Let me try again. We use miles to measure distance. Hopefully you agree with me that, miles, being a system of measurement to express relationships of distance, have no ontological existence themselves. I would find it completely bizarre, for example, for someone to argue passionately that, "no miles are the real deal and something that exists in the universe and meters are a fabrication". Distance surely is a real p…
> Finally, to claim that information is somehow the important fundament of existence is patently absurd to me, since it would've similar to arguing that miles have some very special epistemic and ontological status.
As the sibling comment says, no, it is like arguing that distance/space/extension has a special ontological status — which it does. "It from bit" is just using the word "bit" for the rhyme, the theory is quite profound and compelling, at least to me.
Then there's also Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe" idea, which makes the symbolic world the fundamental one. It goes a bit far for my taste, but it has its own internal coherence.
Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept
#175Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you predict which atom decays next from there?
Since the decayed state exists, then any. Your question tries to assume sqrt(exp(-t/T))=0, which is false.
My point was that we cannot predict which atom decays next.
If you want to claim that we could predict which specific atom decays next, I'd really like to see a lot more explaintion and exposition as it would upend current understanding.
Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just it though. Yes, separating symbols/descriptions from the physics is a common conflation, rightfully avoided and called out here, but I think you might be overcorrecting unconflating the concepts too much. Quantum information is strange precisely because the theory treats information-like relationships as physically consequential. Entanglement, path dependent stuff, cloning theorum, black hole information…
I don't know enough about the quantum level to really understand whether or not that would change my view of things. From Shannon's theory, it's abundantly clear that "information" is just a mathematical description of difference and expectation. I can frame anything as information. If I know who my parents are, a statement about who they are is not informative to me because it constitutes no difference. The entropy…
> From Shannon's theory, it's abundantly clear that "information" is just a mathematical description
That's a very narrow and technical definition of information. It's what people refer to by the word when they discuss things like: communication, medium, surprise, compression, etc. in a technical context. Otherwise one should refer to the dictionary definition, so we don't end up talking past each other.
If you'd like to get a better intuitive sense of what "it from bit" points at, check out David Deutsch's Constructor Theory and the Stephen Wolfram Physics Project. Also, Bernardo Kastrup, on the philosophy front.
Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since the decayed state exists, then any. Your question tries to assume sqrt(exp(-t/T))=0, which is false.
My point was that we cannot predict which atom decays next. If you want to claim that we could predict which specific atom decays next, I'd really like to see a lot more explaintion and exposition as it would upend current understanding.
The trick is that you can't predict something that doesn't happen even if you feel otherwise.
Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point was that we cannot predict which atom decays next. If you want to claim that we could predict which specific atom decays next, I'd really like to see a lot more explaintion and exposition as it would upend current understanding.
The trick is that you can't predict something that doesn't happen even if you feel otherwise.
Atoms don't decay? Radioactive decay isn't a thing?
But at least we agree there is nothing we can predict.
Re: Computation as a universal and fundamental concept
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trick is that you can't predict something that doesn't happen even if you feel otherwise.
Atoms don't decay? Radioactive decay isn't a thing? But at least we agree there is nothing we can predict.
We can predict decay process as
sqrt(1-exp(-t/T))|1> + sqrt(exp(-t/T))|0>